What do you know, Kevin Miller finally responded to what I wrote, only I had to hit him elsewhere before he babbled incoherently:

Quote

I see Glen D. has been having a heyday with the following statement that I made on antievolution.org: "I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself."Somehow he takes that to mean I oppose the very foundation of science, which is patently untrue. What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science. That's why I find this whole controversy so interesting, b/c it forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about the nature of science that we wouldn't be asking if the IDers weren't around. I fail to see how this observation pits me against science in any way.

The way I read it, his defense is that it's not him who's challenging science; it's those IDists who are doing it. He's just observing selling the controversy.

[Edit: "who's" rather than "that's"]

--------------Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box